Roundup: Some kind of return to Parliament

Posted on by

For his Sunday presser, as news from Nova Scotia was filtering in, Justin Trudeau largely delivered a greatest hits compilation – but the kind where there aren’t any new tracks, just a remix. He mentioned the creation of a disability advisory group and that the Canadian Rangers were headed to two more Quebec Indigenous communities, but that was it for news. But the real question was about whether Parliament would indeed be returning today or not, and Trudeau tried to paint a completely disingenuous picture that unless a deal was struck – and the Conservatives were not budging – that all 338 MPs would be on planes to come back to Ottawa.

Erm, except that wasn’t true at all. The parties had already decided that it wasn’t going to play out that way, and that only a handful of MPs would return to Ottawa regardless of the circumstances. As for virtual sittings, Trudeau said that they proposed one in-person sitting and one virtual sitting per week, later bumped up to two (apparently to be set up like the UK is doing – a hybrid of some MPs in the Chamber, the rest coming in by video), but oh wait – they’re not actually set up to do that anytime soon, nor has the Procedure and House Affairs Committee set out any provisional rules or guidelines for that to happen. And then there’s the problem where a number of MPs have spotty Internet to begin with – which is made worse by the strain on the system by everyone staying home and streaming Netflix or other video – and you have a recipe for more Privilege violations as MPs can’t participate in sittings like they’re supposed to.

But here’s the thing – everyone claiming that this is some kind of Conservative trap, and even some of my more credulous colleagues claiming that this could mean that the Conservatives could suddenly have enough MPs to pull a non-confidence vote, doesn’t have a basic grasp of parliamentary procedure. The government still controls the agenda, and any opposition party would need to provide at least 24 hours’ notice of a motion of non-confidence if they were foolish enough to try and propose one in the middle of a global pandemic. And even though Andrew Scheer may be a smirking, braying doofus, he’s not so suicidal as to try to topple the government in the middle of a global pandemic (especially when he’s no longer the permanent party leader). No, the Conservatives can’t hold up any business because most of what’s going to happen is some quasi-Question Period “accountability sessions,” probably under the aegis of Committee of the Whole, and if – big if – they’re feeling ambitious, they can debate some of the other bills on the Order Paper, but that’s unlikely to be the case. Everyone needs to calm the eff down. Parliament is an essential service, and MPs can do it with proper physical distancing better than the grocery store workers out there right now.

Good reads:

  • The worst mass shooting in Canadian history happened in Nova Scotia leaving seventeen dead including the gunman and one RCMP officer.
  • The government is increasing scrutiny of any foreign takeovers that may try to take advantage of the current pandemic situation.
  • Lots of people keep talking about CERB as a prototype for a universal basic income, but nobody wants to talk about the gigantic costs (which is up to 25 percent of GDP).

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

6 thoughts on “Roundup: Some kind of return to Parliament”

  1. Dale,

    You are discussing “Virtual Parliaments” as an immediate essential service to keep governments accountable, which is very true.

    I thought you might be interested in the endeavours of Her Excellency, The Honourable Linda Dessau, the 29th Governor of the State of Victoria in the Commonwealth of Australia in conducting Executive Council swearing-in ceremonies by videolink:

    “At the end of last week, the Governor was called upon by the Premier to swear Ministers into new roles, as part of the new Crisis Council of Cabinet. This new Council is part of Victoria’s response to COVID-19. The Governor conducted the swearings-in via video-link, the first time in the history of the State that Ministers have been sworn in in this way.”

    Here are the links to the official website of the Governor:

    https://www.governor.vic.gov.au/

    https://www.governor.vic.gov.au/all-news/new-ways-communicating-0

    Enjoy,

    Ronald A. McCallum

    • I’m saying Parliament is an essential service and it should never be virtual. That’s slightly different.

      • Dale,

        Would you be in agreement that the “skeleton parliament houses” of 20 to 32 Members of the House of Commons and 15 to 20 Members of the Senate (when needed to pass legislation) is sufficient?

        Ronald A. McCallum

        • Not regular legislation, but that’s not really what is being proposed at this time.

  2. How is a virtual Parliament where a number of MPs may not have the technology to participate any worse than in-person meetings where it’s assumed many MPs may not travel to attend? Either way, the fact that many, maybe a majority, of MPs won’t be able to participate, is baked in. In that case, the health issue tips the balance, in my opinion, as well as the fact that the technology could be improved, but negative health effects can’t be reversed.

    I think you underestimate the potential for abuse on the side of opposition parties to take advantage of any imbalance of numbers in attendance, too. It’s not something I have confidence in, and you’re speculating on that aspect, even though you constantly lament about the lack of knowledge in the House about parliamentary procedure. You’re also assuming that the majority of MPs won’t feel pressure, even from what they put on themselves, to get to Parliament, and what price they might pay in local constituencies, if there’s a perception that they’re shirking, when other MPs are there.

    You’re totally writing off the health concerns, and just what is involved with travel and meetings and so on, and how many of the health advisories would have to be transgressed, which has a symbolic power, if nothing else. You’re just on the wrong side of this one. You haven’t even put forward a valid argument that can acknowledge that the side you don’t agree with has legitimate concerns. You can’t seem to be bothered to do so, you’re so convinced you’re right and that only people with contempt for Parliament could think otherwise.

    I guess I’m disappointed, because I read this column faithfully, but I feel turned off by your attitude on this one.

  3. Dale,

    What do you think about holding elections during the COVID-19 Pandemic?

    Apparently, the Northern Territory Electoral Commission will be going ahead with their August 22, 2020 General Election for the fixed term Legislative Assembly in Australia. Here is a link to the story on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation website:

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-21/nt-election-to-proceed/12151360?section=politics

    Personally, I do think that any election that is NOT carved in stone should be delayed until the pandemic is more or less over.

    I do not know whether or not if the Administrator of the Northern Territory on the Chief Minister’s advice could delay the election, but the Northern Territory’s Chief Minister wants to go ahead.

    What do you think about holding elections by mail like the States of Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and I believe even Alaska and Hawaii?

    Ronald A. McCallum

Comments are closed.